Bill O'Reilly its time for gun control

[agent00f]

Wow, you really don't know what a subject or predicate is. Thanks for the laugh.

This looks to be the defense mechanism activated when you can't address the simplest of observations.

The "collective right" interpretation was unanimously rejected by the Court.

Stevens' dissent states that "the question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals."

Breyer wrote that "the Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred."

Is there any subject that you aren't completely clueless about?

Copy from the first result in google on 2A collective right doesn't make one clued in:
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html

Looks like that's about the limits of your ability, which explains the inability to address simple observations like: "If the writer meant individual right, it would've been straightforward enough to simply skip the unnecessary subject of the militia."

-
Since it's established you can google, looking up noun clause will explain why Millitia is a subject and so forth. On second thought that involves more than copying, so it likely won't result in anything.

 

[ivwshane]

I quoted both of the dissenting opinions. The justices unanimously agreed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

The 5-4 split was over the scope of that right. The majority ruled that the Second Amendment protects a right to self-defense unrelated militia service. The dissenters believed that it only "protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests."

Breyer has some good comments about some of the more tortured reasoning in Scalia's opinion:

Only one of your quotes said it was an individual right, the other said the issue wasn't a matter of being a collective or an individual right. So again, not only was the decision not unanimous, the recognition of the 2nd being an individual right was also not unanimous.


Fyi: breyers dissent didn't acknowledge that the 2nd was an individual right, he was merely using the premise to illustrate that rights are not unlimited.

 

[Venix]

Only one of your quotes said it was an individual right, the other said the issue wasn't a matter of being a collective or an individual right. So again, not only was the decision not unanimous, the recognition of the 2nd being an individual right was also not unanimous.


Fyi: breyers dissent didn't acknowledge that the 2nd was an individual right, he was merely using the premise to illustrate that rights are not unlimited.

Stevens said the Second Amendment "surely ... protects a right that can be enforced by individuals." He was dismissing the "collective right" interpretation as not worthy of consideration. He then explained that "the conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right," and went on to examine that scope.

Breyer lists "four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes." The first proposition is that "the Amendment protects an “individual” right."

No justices expressed support for the "collective right" interpretation.

 

[agent00f]

Only one of your quotes said it was an individual right, the other said the issue wasn't a matter of being a collective or an individual right. So again, not only was the decision not unanimous, the recognition of the 2nd being an individual right was also not unanimous.


Fyi: breyers dissent didn't acknowledge that the 2nd was an individual right, he was merely using the premise to illustrate that rights are not unlimited.

The topic can be confusing because "individual/collective right" has a legal history/backdrop that doesn't really correspond to straightforward thinking about the text itself.

The three positions typically referenced are:
1. The emphasis of the sentence is on the militia part, meaning the text only talks about guns in that context. Ergo "collective/group" since that's what a militia is.
2. The emphasis of the sentence is on the "right of the people", meaning individuals have the right in a militia context, ie. that right only extending so far as militias go. This is the dissenting opinion.
3. The first half of the sentence is to be completely ignored, because the militia part in there is inconvenient to conservative gun ideology. This is the political hack way the current court majority rules.

1 & 2 are relatively close in how normal persons understand english, but the difference has legal ramification esp. per incorp 14th amendment. The 14th says that states can't interfere with individual rights, which shoots down gun legislation at state level.

The reason they probably choose to get away from the #1 collective right is legal baggage from previous decisions, but that's another topic.

 

[Venix]

Copy from the first result in google on 2A collective right doesn't make one clued in:
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html

Looks like that's about the limits of your ability, which explains the inability to address simple observations like: "If the writer meant individual right, it would've been straightforward enough to simply skip the unnecessary subject of the militia."

"My statement was factually incorrect, but you used Google so that makes me right"

Not that it matters, but those quotes were taken from Cornell's copy of the opinion, not your link. That much should be obvious from the formatting differences. I suppose you could also search my posting history and see the half dozen other times I've quoted or discussed Heller.

Anyway, you should ask the justices to address that "simple observation," since they're the ones who said that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. As Breyer wrote, "the entire Court subscribes [to the proposition that] the Amendment protects an “individual” right."

looking up noun clause will explain why Millitia is a subject and so forth

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is a nominative absolute, not a noun clause.

This is trivial to verify: A nominative absolute can be removed without affecting the sentence's grammatical correctness, whereas removing a noun clause renders the sentence ungrammatical. Let's see what happens:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A nominative absolute can also be transformed into a subordinate clause by adding a subordinating conjunction and the appropriate form of "be":

"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

These transformations should also assist you in determining the sentence's subject and predicate. Hint: "Militia" is the subject of the absolute, but the sentence's main subject is necessarily found in the independent clause.

 

[bshole]

When Clinton puts a few liberal judges into the Supreme Court, their will be REAL, SUBSTANTIAL and PERMANENT changes to the gun laws in America. So you better make sweet sweet love to your assault rifle now cuz I am sensing a divorce in your near future.... lol...

There are consequences for nominating NUTBAGS for president. The loss of your gun "rights" will be the consequence in this instance. About fucking time.

 

[Artdeco]

When Clinton puts a few liberal judges into the Supreme Court, their will be REAL, SUBSTANTIAL and PERMANENT changes to the gun laws in America. So you better make sweet sweet love to your assault rifle now cuz I am sensing a divorce in your near future.... lol...

There are consequences for nominating NUTBAGS for president. The loss of your gun "rights" will be the consequence in this instance. About fucking time.

So you think the government will be confiscating around 10 million guns?

Not one fully automatic gun was confiscated from the ban, and they can still be bought and sold.

http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/...mat=headlines&website=&language=&session_key=

 

[agent00f]

"My statement was factually incorrect, but you used Google so that makes me right"

Not that it matters, but those quotes were taken from Cornell's copy of the opinion, not your link. That much should be obvious from the formatting differences. I suppose you could also search my posting history and see the half dozen other times I've quoted or discussed Heller.

Anyway, you should ask the justices to address that "simple observation," since they're the ones who said that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. As Breyer wrote, "the entire Court subscribes [to the proposition that] the Amendment protects an “individual” right."

Substantively speaking, the dissenting narrow individual right is largely the collective right, in comparison to the majority individual right opinion. Posting on an internet forum it's entirely confusing to use the legal terminology, but in hindsight that should be weigh against possible pedantry.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is a nominative absolute, not a noun clause.

This is trivial to verify: A nominative absolute can be removed without affecting the sentence's grammatical correctness, whereas removing a noun clause renders the sentence ungrammatical. Let's see what happens:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A nominative absolute can also be transformed into a subordinate clause by adding a subordinating conjunction and the appropriate form of "be":

"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

These transformations should also assist you in determining the sentence's subject and predicate. Hint: "Militia" is the subject of the absolute, but the sentence's main subject is necessarily found in the independent clause.

As previously mentioned "A well regulated militia" is the noun clause, by definition a subject.

"This is trivial to verify: A nominative absolute can be removed without affecting the sentence's grammatical correctness, whereas removing a noun clause renders the sentence ungrammatical. Let's see what happens:"

"being necessary to the security of a free state, ... ".

Also previously mentioned this is pedantry meant to highlight yours. The original subject/predicate illustration is a simplified analogy of relationships in a sentence; it makes no difference there to call it absolute/independent or predicate/subject instead except be unnecessarily confusing.

I'm sure you're glad the inconsequential parts are now resolved while nobody else has any idea wtf is going on.

 

[SlowSpyder]

When Clinton puts a few liberal judges into the Supreme Court, their will be REAL, SUBSTANTIAL and PERMANENT changes to the gun laws in America. So you better make sweet sweet love to your assault rifle now cuz I am sensing a divorce in your near future.... lol...

There are consequences for nominating NUTBAGS for president. The loss of your gun "rights" will be the consequence in this instance. About fucking time.

You guys keep acting like a semi automatic rifle is the problem. Very, VERY few people are killed each year by so called "assault rifles". Will you anti-gunners feel better when we're burying the dead that were blown up by fertilizer bomb laden vehicles or handguns? You're misplacing your anger towards the tool, and banning it will achieve nothing, as similar "assault weapons" bans have achieved in the past. Once again, only law abiding citizens will lose rights, and the anti-gun left will cheer as we lose freedoms.

 

[bshole]

So you think the government will be confiscating around 10 million guns?

Not one fully automatic gun was confiscated from the ban, and they can still be bought and sold.

http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/...mat=headlines&website=&language=&session_key=

I think assault rifles will be regulated like machine guns and it will come via a court case before a liberal supreme court.

 

[Artdeco]

You guys keep acting like a semi automatic rifle is the problem. Very, VERY few people are killed each year by so called "assault rifles". Will you anti-gunners feel better when we're burying the dead that were blown up by fertilizer bomb laden vehicles or handguns? You're misplacing your anger towards the tool, and banning it will achieve nothing, as similar "assault weapons" bans have achieved in the past. Once again, only law abiding citizens will lose rights, and the anti-gun left will cheer as we lose freedoms.

And based on the 15% compliance rate in countries like Australia (notice you never see that figure anywhere) it just turns currently law abiding citizens into criminals. 99.999% of AR15's are not used to injure people, and handguns are a heck of a lot more of a problem, but incrementalism, right? First the evil assault rifle, then handguns...

 

[bshole]

You guys keep acting like a semi automatic rifle is the problem. Very, VERY few people are killed each year by so called "assault rifles". Will you anti-gunners feel better when we're burying the dead that were blown up by fertilizer bomb laden vehicles or handguns? You're misplacing your anger towards the tool, and banning it will achieve nothing, as similar "assault weapons" bans have achieved in the past. Once again, only law abiding citizens will lose rights, and the anti-gun left will cheer as we lose freedoms.

This is a dead issue for you. It really is. We have the Supreme Court. Game over man. Game over. You shouldn't have nominated a lunatic.

 

[Artdeco]

This is a dead issue for you. It really is. We have the Supreme Court. Game over man. Game over. You shouldn't have nominated a lunatic.

I guess it's time to invest in a revolver and a couple of speed loaders.

Look, they even come in black

 

[glenn1]

Substantively speaking, the dissenting narrow individual right is largely the collective right, in comparison to the majority individual right opinion. Posting on an internet forum it's entirely confusing to use the legal terminology, but in hindsight that should be weigh against possible pedantry.




As previously mentioned "A well regulated militia" is the noun clause, by definition a subject.

"This is trivial to verify: A nominative absolute can be removed without affecting the sentence's grammatical correctness, whereas removing a noun clause renders the sentence ungrammatical. Let's see what happens:"

"being necessary to the security of a free state, ... ".

Also previously mentioned this is pedantry meant to highlight yours. The original subject/predicate illustration is a simplified analogy of relationships in a sentence; it makes no difference there to call it absolute/independent or predicate/subject instead except be unnecessarily confusing.

I'm sure you're glad the inconsequential parts are now resolved while nobody else has any idea wtf is going on.

Your attempts at using grammar incorrectly to support your wrong policy position are amusing but wrong. Read Heller to understand why. First as has already been stated the Court unanimously said the “the right of the people” refers to individuals. It's pretty much impossible to interpret it any other way, how exactly would a collective "militia" claim or exercise a right to bear arms if the 2nd Amendment was limited to just it and not the individuals who collectively comprised the militia? No other right exists that way, for example the right to speech isn't limited to the collective "Press" but to the individual as reporters and citizens. The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply only to the "collective" people but rather the individuals who form that people. And so on.

https://books.google.com/books?id=oHu9CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of the national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people” – those who were able bodied, male, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear arms” in an organized militia, therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore the with the strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

 

[SlowSpyder]

This is a dead issue for you. It really is. We have the Supreme Court. Game over man. Game over. You shouldn't have nominated a lunatic.

I'm no Republican... We'll see what ends up happening with the 2nd, but what will it really achieve if they ban AR-15 style guns? The murder rate won't change, mass shootings will still occur, and only those of us who abide by the law will be affected and lose rights. Do nothing feel good garbage legislation, if that's the direction it goes.

 

[bshole]

I guess it's time to invest in a revolver and a couple of speed loaders.

I have a feeling handguns will be regulated too. They are the biggest killer of all.

 

[bshole]

I'm no Republican... We'll see what ends up happening with the 2nd, but what will it really achieve if they ban AR-15 style guns? The murder rate won't change, mass shootings will still occur, and only those of us who abide by the law will be affected and lose rights. Do nothing feel good garbage legislation, if that's the direction it goes.

I am sure there will be much more than just an assault weapons ban. I think the floodgates will open. We need gun laws with TEETH.

 

[jackstar7]

You guys keep acting like a semi automatic rifle is the problem. Very, VERY few people are killed each year by so called "assault rifles". Will you anti-gunners feel better when we're burying the dead that were blown up by fertilizer bomb laden vehicles or handguns? You're misplacing your anger towards the tool, and banning it will achieve nothing, as similar "assault weapons" bans have achieved in the past. Once again, only law abiding citizens will lose rights, and the anti-gun left will cheer as we lose freedoms.

Sigh.

Your logic is flawed.

Poor legislation is the reason the previous bans didn't achieve anything. It left enough loopholes that the gun industry drove new and adjusted guns to their customers right through them. A properly written ban on assault weapons could have actual impact.

The nonsense that criminals would still get them... has been covered many many times. If you dry up the supply demand will shift to other easier-to-get options, like handguns or shotguns. Those options are dramatically less likely to be used to kill 50 people inside of a few minutes by a crazy lone gunman.

The more impedance we add to those who want to carry out violence and terrorism, the less likely those acts will be carried out. People are rarely so determined to do anything that they will overcome a great number of barriers to their impulses.

 

[Artdeco]

I'm no Republican... We'll see what ends up happening with the 2nd, but what will it really achieve if they ban AR-15 style guns? The murder rate won't change, mass shootings will still occur, and only those of us who abide by the law will be affected and lose rights. Do nothing feel good garbage legislation, if that's the direction it goes.

I'm a Democrat, but have never voted a full ticket based on the party.

 

[glenn1]

What's amusing is that even if the wrongheaded "the Second Amendment only applies to members of the militia" it still wouldn't work. 10 U.S. Code § 311 defines the militia:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Therefore if you limited application of the 2nd Amendment to the militia, that interpretation would run afoul of 14th Amendment Equal Protection since the right would be limited to able bodied males 17-45. If you're old, female, or a non-citizen, the progressive movement wants you to have fewer rights.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I'm a Democrat, but have never voted a full ticket based on the party.

I am an independent, but I really am having a hard time choosing this election. Two extremes, two turds to pick from. Guess this is what I get for not wanting Bush vs. Clinton 2.

 

[Artdeco]

I am an independent, but I really am having a hard time choosing this election. Two extremes, two turds to pick from. Guess this is what I get for not wanting Bush vs. Clinton 2.

I was Independent forever, just changed, because it really doesn't matter.

 

[SlowSpyder]

What's amusing is that even if the wrongheaded "the Second Amendment only applies to members of the militia" it still wouldn't work. 10 U.S. Code § 311 defines the militia:



Therefore if you limited application of the 2nd Amendment to the militia, that interpretation would run afoul of 14th Amendment Equal Protection since the right would be limited to able bodied males 17-45. If you're old, female, or a non-citizen, the progressive movement wants you to have fewer rights.

Yup, I always thought the militia was technically any able bodied person over 17 or 18. As you said, now that means just about any adult, given the civil rights laws.

 

[Artdeco]

What I can't wrap my head around re: gun control is the absolute that government won't become corrupt or tbh, just plain evil, it's happened over and over throughout history.

 

[jackstar7]

What I can't wrap my head around re: gun control is the absolute that government won't become corrupt or tbh, just plain evil, it's happened over and over throughout history.

It's not absolute. It's just unlikely in the extreme due to the nature of this government and the people it serves. Do you imagine the members of the military turning on the average people of this country willingly? Unwillingly?

When does caution tip the scales into paranoia? And where is the wisdom in channeling resources (time, money, etc.) into preparation for very unlikely events?

Do you have an asteroid bunker these days? Do you advise people to invest in those places that want to build and supply them for people?